If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

How do you figure? Seatbelt laws are like all laws that deal with self inflicted risk/injury (suicide, speeding on an empty road, etc)... It isn't ok for people to inflict additional costs on other people and society at large through laziness. Why should it be ok for you to increase the odds of psychologically traumatizing people that see your dead body flung from your car? Why should everyone's insurance premiums go up? Why should you be able to increase the odds that money will need to be spent on all the police investigation and then all the civil investigation (is the road safe? do we need to add a stop light? etc).
Just because you are feeling lazy or don't agree with the law doesn't give you that right.

That being said wouldn't this type of a thing work better if they had some sort of super computer testing the new fixes as they come out on an uncountable number of system permiataions to make sure that the fix is not going to crash systems, or at least not as many systems?

Good luck developing that system for less than many billions of dollars.

there will always be exceptions to every rule...making drunk driving is illegal and has changed people's perceptions over time...that won't stop people from doing it but the law reflects changing values...

when I was a kid no one cared...they'd just tell you to pull over and sleep it off...times change and society's values change...

legislation is a reflection of that change...it is bred by those changing values...so...yes it does make a difference.

Eh, call me sadistic--but it's my personal conviction that legislating common sense is a Bad Idea. If people are going to be stupid, and they die on account of their stupidity, that raises the average intelligence of the human race as a whole.

The problem with that logic is that it's the stupid people killing the smart ones...eg. you're drunk and have no seatbelt...you swerve off the road and run over two children playing in their yard...you then hit a tree and get catapulted through your windshield and through a pane glass window killing grandma knitting booties for her grandchildren...oh!...the guy is so wasted he survives...wanders off to the nearest pub...steals a car...and starts it all over...

The problem with that logic is that it's the stupid people killing the smart ones...eg. you're drunk and have no seatbelt...you swerve off the road and run over two children playing in their yard...you then hit a tree and get catapulted through your windshield and through a pane glass window killing grandma knitting booties for her grandchildren...

The smart people should know to stay off the roads on Friday and Saturday nights. *smirk* Yeah, the point about the kids is valid, but keep in mind that grandma's already reproduced, so her demise has no impact on the future population.

With all due respect, seatbelt laws *are* stupid. Those who don't wear seatbelts will just ignore 'em.

Ignore 'em... my what myopic, childlike thought patterns you have.

Ignore them as the place undue psychological costs upon anyone involved in an accident with them.
Ignore them as they place undue financial costs upon my insurance companies.
Ignore them as the place undue costs upon the civil system.

Will you then blame the auto makers for people not wearing seatbelts like so many blame Microsoft for people not securing their systems?

Legislating common sense never works.

Depends on how you define "works". If by that you mean "solves the problem" of course not, though the approaches used at fighting crime in New York clearly indicates that this is a good approach is properly enforced. If by "works" you mean "helps recovery and thereby mitigate some of the costs" then you are dead wrong and it works quite well.
Fines for civic costs, and targeted increased insurance rates... there is still that pesky psychological cost. Hell, people have seen worse on TV or at the movies.

Ignore them as the place undue psychological costs upon anyone involved in an accident with them.
Ignore them as they place undue financial costs upon my insurance companies.
Ignore them as the place undue costs upon the civil system.

Will you then blame the auto makers for people not wearing seatbelts like so many blame Microsoft for people not securing their systems?

Depends on how you define "works". If by that you mean "solves the problem" of course not, though the approaches used at fighting crime in New York clearly indicates that this is a good approach is properly enforced. If by "works" you mean "helps recovery and thereby mitigate some of the costs" then you are dead wrong and it works quite well.
Fines for civic costs, and targeted increased insurance rates... there is still that pesky psychological cost. Hell, people have seen worse on TV or at the movies.

cheers,

catch

Hey, no need to make fun of me 'cuz I wear glasses. *smirk*

And yes. Those who don't want to wear seatbelts will ignore those laws, and do all those things. They will not think of 'psychological costs' because quite frankly, those 'costs' will never cross their mind. They won't care about the 'costs' they place on your insurance...or on the civil system. Quite frankly, most humans are selfish, nasty creatures and do not consider the 'costs' they place on anyone else at any time.

I just recognize human nature for what it is.

And by 'works' I do mean 'solves the problem'. The only solution for the problem is to improve people's intelligence--and that won't ever happen.

Back on the original topic, one thing still bothers me. Should this secured network of honeypots be infiltrated for example: from the inside, and being that this network of honeypots (I'm assuming) would be trusted by default...wouldn't that posess an even greater danger?
In my opinion, centralizing anti-virus efforts to circumvent typical user ignorance is not an end-all solution.

The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other bastard die for his - George Patton

Should this secured network of honeypots be infiltrated for example: from the inside, and being that this network of honeypots (I'm assuming) would be trusted by default...wouldn't that posess an even greater danger?

That's a good point. Would you go see a doctor and trust him to heal you if you walk in and the whole doctors office, the honeypot network, is infected with the same virus?

\"He who shall introduce into public affairs the principles of primitive Christianity will change the face of the world.\"
Benjamin Franklin